Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Painted target (Score 1) 112

by gstoddart (#48944031) Attached to: Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks

globalization is not a choice. you can't opt out.
with 7,221,305,422 people , jets and the internet what do you think is going to happen
the people that are generating massive wealth simply understand whats going on better.

Or, you look at some of the things of globalization ... free trade, exporting of copyright laws, other things which distort the market and turn it into a farce where the game is rigged ...

And you decide, does this really make any sense?

I think those people "generating massive wealth" who "simply understand whats going on better" have sold us a bill of goods which says "the way to prosperity is this, follow me", when in fact what it says is "fuck you, jack, this stacks the odds in my favor and now I'll rip you off"

I think the economic models championed by the people pushing the shittiest bits of globalization are lies, and I think "globalization", as America has been selling it, it basically a long-con.

I think if countries suddenly said "why aren't we protecting out own jobs, and our own products, and our own economies", instead of operating under the myth that letting those be lost to "globalization" and ruthless corporations. What fucking benefit to society is it if a foreign-owned company maximizes their profits while cutting domestic jobs and leaving an vacuum?

Globalization is predicated on gutting as many smaller companies as possible, in order to get one massive corporation -- all so that shareholder value and executive bonuses can be maximized, while local economies are gutted and left to rot.

The notion that Country A should buy companies in Country B to, only to move jobs to Company C is only good if you're in Country A ... otherwise it's pretty much raping and pillaging Country B.

Globalization is about the eternal quest to find a Country B to fuck over as much as you can.

Globalization is a fucking Ponzi scheme.

Comment: Re:Windows Phone (Score 2) 78

by gstoddart (#48943081) Attached to: Fixing Verizon's Supercookie

WTF does being anti or pro Microsoft have to do with the fact that the fucking headers are being rewritten by Verizon?

I'm not blindly pro or anti Microsoft -- but let's not fucking pretend a Windows phone is a magic cure-all for something which is happening at the carrier level.

But, hey, don't let common sense or facts stand in the way of being an idiot.

Comment: Re:Windows Phone (Score 4, Informative) 78

by gstoddart (#48942041) Attached to: Fixing Verizon's Supercookie

Are you clueless or something?

Verizon's controversial technology basically involves attaching tracking numbers whenever customers view Web pages. Generally, to visit a Web page, my computer (or phone, tablet, etc.) sends a request message to the website with that page. Think of this like a very (very!) fast version of sending a letter through the mail, requesting some information.

Now imagine if the Postal Service assigned an identification number to me, and every time I sent one of those letters, a postal worker opened up the envelope and stamped the ID number inside. That is more or less what Verizon has been doing: Every time a Verizon Wireless customer requests a Web page, Verizon rewrites the request in transit to include a tracking number identifying the customer.

There is no way to disable this, and certainly not with your damned Windows phone.

Verizon is directly injecting this crap into your request, on their servers, independent of what YOU do.

Basically Verizon are acting like a bunch of greedy assholes, and setting every request you make to be something uniquely identifiable as you.

Comment: Re:Painted target (Score 5, Insightful) 112

by gstoddart (#48940561) Attached to: Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks

Because globalization is the directive, and you can't think this way and be a globalist.

And what evidence do we have the globalization helps anybody except corporations who fuck the rest of us over in the process?

Everybody acts like globalization is a good thing ... and unless you're a multinational corporation, I have yet to be convinced that's true.

H1B visas are just large corporations cheating the system by bringing in cheaper labor from other countries.

I'm of the opinion that globalization is a crock, championed by those who make money from it, and which comes at the expense of everybody else.

Comment: Re:Sure they can (Score 4, Insightful) 112

by gstoddart (#48940393) Attached to: Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks

Easy answer: don't trust any of them.

You'll be far less disappointed by assuming all corporations and government are lying, self-serving bastards who don't give a fuck about you, and will happily climb over you to get what they want.

It's probably not far from the truth.

Comment: I'm sorry ... (Score 5, Insightful) 112

by gstoddart (#48940315) Attached to: Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks

Sorry, but am I meant to believe the US government doesn't also insist on backdoors?

Because they pretty blatantly want backdoors in crypto and everything else.

So let's not pretend it's just China doing this ... every damned government is insisting on this crap.

And, really:

With these new regulations, foreign companies and business groups worry that authorities may be trying to push them out of the fast-growing market. According to the Times, the groups -- which include the US Chamber of Commerce -- sent a letter Wednesday to a top-level Communist Party committee, criticizing the new policies that they say essentially amount to protectionism.

Boo frickin' hoo. You think China gives a crap about a stern letter from the US Chamber of Commerce? Or that they care if you have access to their markets?

Other than that's the only way they can keep expanding indefinitely, what makes corporations feel like they're entitled to be in any market?

I'm betting a bunch of the companies involved in this collective hand-wringing are already enabling the US government to have access through other backdoors -- so don't pretend it's even more terrible when China does it.

If America is so concerned about backdoors and exploits in Chinese made products ... make 'em yourselves.

American companies need to stop acting like they can tell countries where they do business what they're willing to do. Suck it up, you want access to the market you play by the rules. Just like they would have to do to do business in the US.

I hear this crap and I just hear "Waaah, how are we to make a profit if you impose rules on us, woe is us, how will be maximize executive bonuses if there are rules?"


Tech Companies Worried Over China's New Rules For Selling To Banks 112

Posted by Soulskill
from the worried-all-the-way-to-the-bank dept.
An anonymous reader writes: China is putting into place a new set of regulations for how banks interact with technology, and it has many companies worried. While the rules might enhance security for the Chinese government, they devastate it for everyone else. For example, not only will China require that companies turn over source code for any software sold to banks, the companies building the software (and hardware) must also build back doors into their systems. The bad news for us is that most companies can't afford to simply refuse the rules and write China off. Tech industry spending is estimated to reach $465 billion in 2015, and it's projected for a huge amount of growth.

Comment: Is anybody surprised? (Score 4, Insightful) 65

by gstoddart (#48940081) Attached to: Reverse Engineering the Nike+ FuelBand's Communications Protocol

In what way should anybody be surprised that a wearable, wireless device has implemented security in a completely incompetent way?

These are products which are intended to be cool, shiny, and pretty ... but secure? Not even a little.

I continue to be unsurprised by this crap, and I continue fairly firm in my indifference to owning any of this stuff ... and the same goes the for "Interweb of Stuff"; I assume that out of the gate it's going to be insecure and stupid.

Unless companies have actual legal liability for shit security, you'll continue to see shit security.

So just don't buy it if you value security or privacy -- because they're all pretty much designed to upload your information to analytics companies anyway.

Comment: And more importantly ... (Score 4, Informative) 86

by gstoddart (#48939691) Attached to: US Wireless Spectrum Auction Raises $44.9 Billion

The wireless industry estimates that for every 10 Megahertz of spectrum licensed for wireless broadband, 7,000 American jobs are created and U.S. gross domestic product increases by $1.7 billion.

And more importantly, this correlates to a 5% increase in executive compensation, and a 2% increase in the hookers and cocaine fund.

This will also increase the pool for bribing politicians by an additional 1.5%, ensuring the best opportunities to purchase favorable legislation.

CEOs are said to be pleased with the forecasted pillaging of the American public, and look forward to raising your rates and finding new and creative ways to give you less for your money, while optimizing long-term executive compensation.


Comment: Of course not ... (Score 2) 93

by gstoddart (#48938925) Attached to: 'Anonymized' Credit Card Data Not So Anonymous, MIT Study Shows

"We are showing that the privacy we are told that we have isn't real"

Of course it's not bloody real.

For us to believe this data has been 'anonymized', we have to assume that a) the company is qualified to do what is required to anonymize the data, b) that they actually give a shit, and c) that they bear any penalty if they do a terrible job.

Entrusting these companies with this data in the first place is the problem. Allowing them to share it all over the place for profit and with no restriction is a terrible idea.

This is precisely why sane countries have data protection and privacy laws -- because corporations are greedy, self serving entities, who won't give a crap if the collateral damage of their stuff is to damage the privacy of everybody they deal with.

And this is precisely why all of those analytics companies in web pages are just parasites and not to be trusted.

Comment: Re:Liars figure and figures lie (Score 1) 135

by Bogtha (#48934339) Attached to: The American App Economy Is Now "Bigger Than Hollywood"

the functionality of the devices is about the same

It's very different. On Android, you have to decide whether to grant permission before you've ever run the application, and it's all or nothing. On iOS, you run the application before deciding whether or not to grant it permission. You have the ability to deny permission while still running the application. You can also allow permission for some things but not others.

This functionality is partially available to Android users who root their phones and install the right tools, but that's far from the common case.

Comment: Re:48GB of ram? (Score 1, Informative) 79

by gstoddart (#48933773) Attached to: Mozilla Dusts Off Old Servers, Lights Up Tor Relays

Honestly, lately I find Firefox to be more of a memory pig than Chrome ... as of the last update to Firefox grows to using 2GB of RAM after a few hours, instead of staying under 1GB after several days.

Because every developer apparently feels that all of my memory is there for just them.

Yeah, Mozilla, I'm looking at you guys -- that's just sloppy.

Moneyliness is next to Godliness. -- Andries van Dam